Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"When the facts change, sir, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Expand Messages
  • Eric Bruun
    Zvi Easier said than done when you live in a society based on utter dependency upon driving, like most of the US. Taking away a driver s license is taking away
    Message 1 of 17 , Oct 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Zvi

      Easier said than done when you live in a society based on utter dependency upon driving,

      like most of the US. Taking away a driver's license is taking away one's livelihood.

      Eric Bruun


      -----Original Message-----
      From: zvileve
      Sent: Oct 30, 2007 4:16 PM
      To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: commuting and discrimination

      In my opinion, driving should always be considered a 'privilege' and
      not a "right". There should be stringent requirements to acquire this
      privilege, and they should always be conditional on certain
      behaviours. For example there should be periodic exams and training on
      related subjects such as navigating the road space as both a
      pedestrian and a bicyclist (to perceive the road space from other
      perspectives) , and zero tolerance for certain kinds of infractions
      such as driving under the influence (first infraction - licence
      revoked for X years, or permanently if the infraction was sufficiently
      serious; second time - driving privileges permanently revoked). I know
      someone who has incurred repeated DWI infractions and yet his licence
      will not be revoked because he needs to drive in order to get to work!

      It is perverse that we have created societies in which one cannot
      function as a full citizen without driving a car!

      Zvi

      --- In NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@.. .> wrote:
      >
      > Regarding the lawsuit mentioned by Jack Nilles, is there any chance that
      > discrimination law could be applied so that ordinary people who
      don't want to --
      > or can't -- drive aren't required to ? Take for example someone who
      has medical
      > reasons for being unable to drive.
      >
      > I believe that discrimination against non-motorists needs to be put
      on a par
      > with other forms of discrimination both in law and in the public mind.
      >
      > Simon Norton
      >

    • Michael Yeates
      Hi .. Unfortunately, it is too easy to generalise this point but in fact we do NOT live in such a society, some people choose to believe that we do and
      Message 2 of 17 , Oct 31, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi ..

        Unfortunately, it is too easy to generalise this point but in fact we do NOT live in such a society, some people choose to believe that "we" do and others subscribe to and/or promote it ... but it is simply not "true" ... it is if you like a "convenient untruth" ...

        And if driving is so important to livelihood, perhaps those so dependent should drive more carefully?

        MY...............

        At 11:39 AM 31/10/2007, Eric Bruun wrote:

        Zvi

        Easier said than done when you live in a society based on utter dependency upon driving,

        like most of the US. Taking away a driver's license is taking away one's livelihood.

        Eric Bruun


        -----Original Message-----
        From: zvileve
        Sent: Oct 30, 2007 4:16 PM
        To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: commuting and discrimination

        In my opinion, driving should always be considered a 'privilege' and
        not a "right". There should be stringent requirements to acquire this
        privilege, and they should always be conditional on certain
        behaviours. For example there should be periodic exams and training on
        related subjects such as navigating the road space as both a
        pedestrian and a bicyclist (to perceive the road space from other
        perspectives), and zero tolerance for certain kinds of infractions
        such as driving under the influence (first infraction - licence
        revoked for X years, or permanently if the infraction was sufficiently
        serious; second time - driving privileges permanently revoked). I know
        someone who has incurred repeated DWI infractions and yet his licence
        will not be revoked because he needs to drive in order to get to work!

        It is perverse that we have created societies in which one cannot
        function as a full citizen without driving a car!

        Zvi
        --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:
        >
        > Regarding the lawsuit mentioned by Jack Nilles, is there any chance that
        > discrimination law could be applied so that ordinary people who
        don't want to --
        > or can't -- drive aren't required to ? Take for example someone who
        has medical
        > reasons for being unable to drive.
        >
        > I believe that discrimination against non-motorists needs to be put
        on a par
        > with other forms of discrimination both in law and in the public mind.
        >
        > Simon Norton
        >


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date: 30/10/2007 6:26 PM
      • Richard Layman
        up to now, cheap energy has enabled a land use paradigm _in the U.S._ that for the most part requires a car. But the rest of the world pays the price, and
        Message 3 of 17 , Oct 31, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          up to now, cheap energy has enabled a land use paradigm _in the U.S._ that for the most part requires a car.  But the rest of the world pays the price, and increasingly so will the U.S.  Municipalities already are.
           
          Driving is a privilege but regarded as a right.
           
          When you rely on other forms of transportation besides the car, even in a city like DC or NYC (cf. streetsblog.org) you see how entitled drivers feel.
           
          "Get on the sidewalk..."
           
          If I had a dollar for every time some driver screamed that at me, I'd be rich.
           
          I think of the old Exxon/Esso commercials "put a tiger in your tank" and instead I think "put a dead soldier in your tank."
           
          As long as the costs for this way of living are off put on municipal and federal budgets, people in other countries and on future generations, it's easy to let things slide.
           
          Since 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of people argue the position that you just expressed, and more, there is room for more than
          .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of people to argue differently.
           
          Richard Layman
          Washington, DC

          Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> wrote:
          Zvi
          Easier said than done when you live in a society based on utter dependency upon driving,
          like most of the US. Taking away a driver's license is taking away one's livelihood.
          Eric Bruun


          -----Original Message-----
          From: zvileve
          Sent: Oct 30, 2007 4:16 PM
          To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
          Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: commuting and discrimination

          In my opinion, driving should always be considered a 'privilege' and
          not a "right". There should be stringent requirements to acquire this
          privilege, and they should always be conditional on certain
          behaviours. For example there should be periodic exams and training on
          related subjects such as navigating the road space as both a
          pedestrian and a bicyclist (to perceive the road space from other
          perspectives) , and zero tolerance for certain kinds of infractions
          such as driving under the influence (first infraction - licence
          revoked for X years, or permanently if the infraction was sufficiently
          serious; second time - driving privileges permanently revoked). I know
          someone who has incurred repeated DWI infractions and yet his licence
          will not be revoked because he needs to drive in order to get to work!

          It is perverse that we have created societies in which one cannot
          function as a full citizen without driving a car!

          Zvi

          --- In NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@.. .> wrote:
          >
          > Regarding the lawsuit mentioned by Jack Nilles, is there any chance that
          > discrimination law could be applied so that ordinary people who
          don't want to --
          > or can't -- drive aren't required to ? Take for example someone who
          has medical
          > reasons for being unable to drive.
          >
          > I believe that discrimination against non-motorists needs to be put
          on a par
          > with other forms of discrimination both in law and in the public mind.
          >
          > Simon Norton
          >


        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.